DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook 191
An anonymous reader sends news that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency impersonated a young woman on Facebook to communicate with suspected criminals, and the Department of Justice argued that they had the right to do so. The woman was charged with being part of a drug ring and sentenced to probation, after which a DEA agent set up a Facebook page in her name, uploaded images to it (including pictures of her son and niece), and used it without her consent. She recently sued the agent in federal district court, and the government argued that she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]." Facebook has now removed the account, and the DoJ is "reviewing" the case.
disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
And it could be worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens if the fake account pisses off some criminal (specifically targeted by the FBI) who then kidnaps/kills her son or niece (who are featured on that fake page)?
Someone needs to be fired over this.
Re:And it could be worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fired??? I would say jail time.
Nathan
Re:And it could be worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The government says it's not cruel. And they intend to make it not particularly unusual.
Passes Constitutional muster to me! <rubberstamp>
WARNING: GOVERNMENT-CRITICAL SARCASM DETECTED. ON-LINE IDENTITY "IDONTGNO" SEIZED IN CIVIL FORFEITURE. CARRY ON CITIZEN, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
Re:And it could be worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if not, the child has a right to privacy. As a minor, the decision of what pictures of the child may be posted online falls to the parent or guardian. The DOJ is neither.
Re: (Score:3)
The DOJ is a guardian to all Americans Sir!
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't there a case not that long ago where a judge allowed a summons to be sent through Facebook because that was the only way of reaching someone? Combine that with this and you have a rather scary scenario.
Re:disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you just love couch terrorists?
Re: (Score:3)
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
That's wrong though. What defines "terrorist" is someone who (keyword)deliberately targets civilians and innocents, primarily to sow fear and terror but also out of just plain blind hate. Conversely, Freedom fighters target the government and it's military they're rebelling against.
Example, the Rebellion in Star Wars would not be deemed terrorists because they only attacked Empire military installations or craft. The American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the same; they may have resorted to som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You should really look into how the loyalists were treated in the American war of separation. Remember that the loyalists were as much citizens of the colonies as any other white person and that while no polls were done, the usual breakdown in those situations is about 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent which is why revolutionaries never act democratically (they're as likely to lose as win), at least until they've thoroughly terrorized the opposition.
Also consider some of the revolutionaries nam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice use of vague and (therefore) unverifiable claims to build a foundation for extraordinary claims of worldwide press censorship (in the face of nearly unfettered communication via the internet, no less). Some might call your post a conspiracy theory, but it all makes sense to me. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Example, the Rebellion in Star Wars would not be deemed terrorists because they only attacked Empire military installations or craft. The American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the same; they may have resorted to some guerrilla warfare type tactics, but against British soldiers; they didn't sail off to Great Britain and start planting bombs in random horse carriages to blow up the civilians.
The rebels didn't (that I'm aware of, I'm not a starwars fan) bomb the imperial senate, and the American revolutionaries didn't bomb parliament.
Re: (Score:3)
Learn a little history before lecturing people on it. There were plenty of appaling crimes against laoyalists by patriots during the revolutionary war. It's naive to think that the biggest difference between terrorist and freedom fighter can be found in semantics. Hell the US support of the Taliban followed by all out war against them should make a mockery of a
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like sarcasm but Poe's law hits hard with that one, given how many Americans unironically feel that way.
Re:disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
Couch terrorist -> Futon fighter
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright Infringment (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like she has a solid case for copyright infringment.
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copyright Infringment (Score:5, Interesting)
Better yet: Identity Theft.
Better yet: two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.
I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Eric Holder has already stated that he has broad latitude in prosecuting criminals. She might win in civil court, but there's no way those apparent criminals are going to jail.
innocent until guilty (Score:2)
By definition, you can only prosecute innocent people, not criminals, as they are not guilty until the judgement says so.
So he must therefore have zero latitude in prosecuting innocents.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your reasoning. We can make a distinction between (a) someone who actually has violated the law, vs. (b) someone whom the state has judged to have violated the law.
I believe Holder was referring to group (a). The act of prosecution, which he appears unwilling to perform, is intended to move a person from merely being in state (a), to being in both state (a) and (b).
Re: (Score:2)
Guilt is retroactive. Yes you are innocent, but that is until you are proven guilty. It means that you WERE guilty even during the time we presumed you to be innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Eric Holder has already stated that he has broad latitude in prosecuting criminals. She might win in civil court, but there's no way those apparent criminals are going to jail.
Of course not. I'm sure the DA will offer 6 months in federal prison & a felony record shortly before they hang themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.
I would rather we do the hanging in the town square so we can all enjoy the scene. When the worst criminals we have to deal with work for the government, we are all in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.
I would rather we do the hanging in the town square so we can all enjoy the scene. When the worst criminals we have to deal with work for the government, we are all in trouble.
I would rather they see their world crumble around them. I want them to see there is no future for their kind. I want them to despair so fully and completely that they cannot handle the thought of continuing to exist being so out of place. I want them to want to kill themselves to relieve themselves of the shame of knowing the rest of the world will move on, better & brighter, regardless of what they've done or tried to do. I don't want them to know failure, for failure requires an understanding of
Re: Copyright Infringment (Score:5, Informative)
You fucking dumbass.
The only difference between Obama and Bush is that the former is a better public speaker.
To the dismay of comedians everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush - under his leadership, debt grows by more than all presidents before him.
Obama - getting close to outdoing Bush in creating more debt than all before him.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone how outright hates (past communists) , their idealogy doesn't seam that bad, if a computer were to control society, but dumb stupid fuck nuts tend to gravitate toward communist leadership positions, much like capitalists management positions.
But damn those commies sometimes make utterly stupid retarded choices, like in Cuba, not letting people grow their own food, in their yards, or not letting people start their own restaraunts that use their own food - forcing them to use 'govt suppliers'. I me
Re: (Score:2)
No, she should stick with copyright infringement. More precedent, bigger penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this not identity theft? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am fairly certain I would be in jail if I committed the same crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I am fairly certain I would be in jail if I committed the same crime.
Because you are little people.
mental gymnastics (Score:5, Insightful)
I urge you to write your congress-critter today and tell him or her that the constitution is too important to ignore in the name of safety and that "hard on crime" is an insult to your intelligence.
Re:mental gymnastics (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what's really happened is that we've allowed government to convince us that "hard on crime" is only valid when the crime is committed by someone with a disreputable history who isn't connected to the government.
I think if the same "hard on crime" rules were applied to government employees, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We also wouldn't have a government.
Re: (Score:3)
So, dwarfs?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not disagreeing with you however every american does that too. Why is the government any different?
It is okay to dump hazard waste into the local drinking water supply. There is no law against it.
It is okay to steal money from the pot their is no law against it.
Every law will be abused and distorted. From the patriot act to local zoning ordances.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:mental gymnastics (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, isn't amazing that when government agents do something illegal, the courts say "stop doing that". But when private citizens do something illegal, even if it took 200 rounds of appeal because even judges couldn't decide if it was illegal, the citizen is held fully culpable.
Land of the Free (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL! What a farce this shithole called USA has become.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest, scariest shithole is Facebook.
It's in a country near you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They've been doing this for years to catch child molester pervs. This is nothing new and is completely legal.
Have they been using the identity of real people to catch pervs? While I want the pervs off the streets, I'm not ok with them using someone's identity without that person's explicit permission.
Re:Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
There is something very wrong with the moral compass of a society that accepts the premise of luring people to commit crimes so they may be prosecuted while we cheer.
People who are on the verge of misdeeds, and where this is known to authorities, should be given warnings to change course lest they commit an act that warrants their removal from society.
Then it should be made a crime to entice people to cross the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Read your own link: entrapment isn't not a crime; it's a defense.
And to the above poster who wrote, "courts used to take a very dim view of it,": Au contraire! Per your sibling poster's link:
Re: (Score:2)
Have they been using the identity of real people to catch pervs? While I want the pervs off the streets, I'm not ok with them using someone's identity without that person's explicit permission.
I thought people around here generally thought the concept of prosecuting for thoughtcrimes was disgusting? And yet here you are, saying that "all those pervo scumbags should be locked up forever!" How about we lock up the ones who actually do something (child molesters), and leave the ones who can't help that they have disfunctional sexual attractions but never act on them (pedophiles) alone, or at worst make them attend mandatory counciling (PedophilesAnonymous perhaps?)? Pedophilia does not mean child molester.
You are putting words into my mouth. I have often said that being tempted isn't a sin, but acting upon the temptation is. Police set up fake profiles in places where they meet scumbags. Those scumbags who solicit sex and go to the house (eg. those who act on their temptations) are the ones who are caught and taken off the streets. We only know that a person has these attractions because they've done or said something to tip it.
Re: (Score:2)
and actually, this is the same thing as the FBI pretending to be a terrorist cell and using information fed from informants, or the vice squad using a confiscated phone to set up drops. Definitely nothing new, been contested in court over and over again, and at this point seems to mostly have been accepted as "infringing, but legal by exception" which is, of course, not legal when you look at it too closely, but legal as far as case law goes.
No, not "the same" (Re:Land of the Free) (Score:2)
When FBI sets up a fake terrorist cell, they don't pretend to be an actual living person without their consent. An exception may be someone already incarcerated, which the woman in TFA is not.
This is a new low...
Re:No, not "the same" (Re:Land of the Free) (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can!
The only problem is that your satire will become reality sooner than you think.
Yet again government agency abuses privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because a dude works for the DOJ... that doesn't give him the right to invade and abuse the person's privacy... regardless if he/she is a criminal or not... Just because he was authorized to view the contents of her phone, it doesn't mean he can freely use it out in the open any way he wants....
And it makes me laugh so hard that now the DOJ is saying they have the right to do it... that's just plain ignorant...
Re: (Score:2)
So this is exactly why Apple would encrypt their entire phone and did not leave a way for them to decrypt their own devices... so that they can avoid situations like this...
Irrelevant in this case, because she (foolishly) consented to the search. We can assume she would have handed over they keys as well, since she didn't object to the search.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How? They are using a real name... Just not their real name.
Thats up to FaceBook (Score:2)
Seems like a clear case of violation of FaceBooks TOS
FB should just delete their accounts
Re: (Score:2)
Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they insane? Wasn't there a run on creating laws in many states just to stop high school students from making fake facebook pages to harass? This act not only could result in job loss, public humiliation, harassment & other life changing events but in threats and even death if an angry drug dealer/user came after her. This officer even misused private information collected for the limited purposes of serving as evidence in a trial. This officer and anyone associated with this heinous act should be charged with identity theft, property theft, libel, unauthorized access to a computer system (remember violating a TOS is now considered to be a crime) and fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it's got the highest possible penalties of all of them and applies, so might as well have it on the list.
Re:Insane (Score:5, Informative)
You think a fake Facebook account is bad, how about having a cop take over your ID and use it to become a stripper! In 2003, Ohio law enforcement agents "appropriated" a woman's drivers license and SSN, and assigned them to an undercover officer who went to work as a stripper for 3 months as part of a sting operation on strip clubs [archive.org]. And the victim in that case hadn't been arrested for (nor consented to) a damn thing.
Pointing to a 2002 change in Ohio's law aimed at fighting identity theft, [the prosecutor] said police are allowed to assume anyone's identity as long as it's part of an investigation.
Fucking outrageous. Law enforcement in the US is out of control and has been so for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Federal agents can't be exempt from all state laws. For example, murder laws are at the state level, not the Federal. Are you saying the Feds can legally kill at will?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, at least as far as state law is concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Put cryptography everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Stuff like this is exactly why strong cryptographic solutions should be woven into the fabric of the internet ASAP (e.g. content signing in this case). Agencies globally have become extremely abusive - spying, manipulating, defrauding,denying - and work against the basic infrastructure elements that would prevent this at every turn. They really bring it on themselves with crap like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Cryptography would have made no difference. She gave them her data willingly (probably as a part of the plea deal) and no facebook encryption would have stopped them from making a new profile.
The interesting part is to determine whether them being allowed to pose as her person was a part of the agreement. It clearly wasn't there explicitly, so the question is whether agreeing "to give them data so they can be used to stop the criminal activity" implicitly allows them to use the data to impersonate her and p
Facebook jumps the shark (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
although i know i cannot totally erase my FB account, i have done what i know how to do. fini.
It wouldn't stop them from creating a new one in your name.
copyright infringement... use CFAA (Score:2, Interesting)
To hell with copyright infringement and her unauthorized use... what about facebook's rights?
The agent in question almost certainly engaged in unauthorized access to facebook servers, in excess of his granted, authenticated authority, while impersonating another user -- on a protected, commerce impacting system (there's ads on those servers). Including hosts with financial impacts crossing state boundaries. Whereas
That is to say -- the agent knowingly broke 8 U.S.C. 1030.
The process of getting the report
And her child? (Score:5, Insightful)
She should also be suing them on behalf of her child for endangerment. In drug transactions family members can be targets of violence. The DOJ was putting a minor in harms way.
That would go really well for the DOJ in court. I would love to be in the courtroom and watch some lawyer from the DOJ defend a practice that puts a child at risk. I'm sure that the jury would hear that testimony and decide there and then that the DOJ should loose the case very painfully.
Also, aren't their laws pertaining to the use of images of minors without parental consent? Even if the image was obtained legally (not likely in this case). Sounds like a potential criminal case to me. Of course, considering it's the DOJ, they could have used the image in a pedophilia sting and nothing would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
So the DOJ also involved her child by posting his picture? As part of a drug investigation?
She should also be suing them on behalf of her child for endangerment. In drug transactions family members can be targets of violence. The DOJ was putting a minor in harms way.
That would go really well for the DOJ in court. I would love to be in the courtroom and watch some lawyer from the DOJ defend a practice that puts a child at risk. I'm sure that the jury would hear that testimony and decide there and then that the DOJ should loose the case very painfully.
Also, aren't their laws pertaining to the use of images of minors without parental consent? Even if the image was obtained legally (not likely in this case). Sounds like a potential criminal case to me. Of course, considering it's the DOJ, they could have used the image in a pedophilia sting and nothing would happen.
They'll buy her off in one way or another. She was on probation...how about a complete clearing of her record to drop the whole thing plus a few thousand 'for the kid's education'.
facebook facebook facebook... (Score:2)
This article makes me scratch my head, for all sorts of reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't HAVE a Facebook account. They created it for her. Using their reasoning they could do the same to you.
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't HAVE a Facebook account. They created it for her. Using their reasoning they could do the same to you.
Right, so maybe you should re-read my original post.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you'll get arrested, they will demand your Facebook password, then lock you up indefinitely when you can't produce it.
Or if they can't do that now, they will eventually. Basically where we're headed folks is, the government can do anything it wants to you, any time.
This simply follows from asking the government to do everything for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement is likely to be able to get around that.
This is crime in many states (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Louisiana: http://www.criminaldefenselawy... [criminalde...lawyer.com]
Unfortunately in New York http://www.criminaldefenselawy... [criminalde...lawyer.com] the intent must be criminal.
From your link:
"A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation by: impersonating another or pretending to represent some person or organization with the intent to benefit the defendant.."
Arguably this was done to benefit those doing the impersonation.
Also, it's quite possible that while using her identity the agent performed illegal acts, which would seem to indicate criminal intent, if indirectly.
"Consented" (Score:2)
"implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
"Consented". they keep using that word.
I do not think it means what they want you to think it means. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
It goes quite handily with all of the other terms they've corrupted. Like that recent story about how information doesn't count as being "collected" until its looked at (mass surveillance), the "shall not/no law/nor shall/limited time" portions of the constitution have mostly been rendered into "whatever you think its necessary" and the (re)interpretation of the "interstate commerce" clause would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
Re: "Consented" (Score:2)
I've never attended college.
Drug Enforcement Agency (Score:2)
There is nothing so bad to the worst of any drugs that is worth giving up this much freedom for.
Question (Score:2)
When the DEA seizes a cell phone from a drug dealer, are they allowed to call numbers stored in the cell phone, posing as the dealer in question?
If not, then what they did with this Facebook page is also illegal.
Ironic... (Score:2)
Legal Identity Theft (LIT) (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I don't think your average drug cartel cares about the distinction between helping the DEA, and appearing to help the DEA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the government argued that she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
They're not doing anything to hide the fact that she assisted them, they're actually arguing that she gave them permission to create the account when she gave them permission to access her phone. Even if their argument doesn't hold up in court, they're still acknowledging she gave them some assistance by allowing them to access her phone. You could maybe claim they're downplaying how much she assisted them, but it seems more likely this is exactly w
Important lesson (Score:2)
Don't ever consent to anything if you are the target of a criminal investigation or anything (like a traffic stop) that might turn into a criminal investigation. What you think they're going to do with your consent and what they intend to do may be two different things. You may be surprised at what the courts *allow* them to do with information you've given them permission to access it.
Be scrupulously cooperative with anything the cop is allowed to demand that you do. Don't argue, lecture or harangue, do
Does it apply to keys? (Score:2)
"implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
To begin with: I worry what "implicitly" means. Do they mean "she had it on her person when arrested"?
That said. If I "implcitly consent" to you searching my pocket, and my house-keys are in it, did I just consent to a home search and the use of my house? I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the stupid and illegal actions of the police might have gotten her killed without any warning to her of any possible threat, so there's that too.
Of course, simply bringing her in for questioning and then letting her go could have gotten her killed without any warning, too. She got involved with drug dealers, and any one of them could have decided she was let go (or in this case, given just probation) for ratting him out. If they are going to kill her for being a snitch on Facebook, then why would they hesitate to kill her for being a snitch while sitting in the interrogation room?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yes, what about the children?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go with at least slightly dense.
Since when has "yes, you can search my phone for evidence of criminal activity to use against others" given the police full access to use any data on the phone, even completely unrelated to a crime, for any purpose? Are they now allowed to go through the phone of someone caught for possession and text his wife about his possible mistress? Awfully big can of worms you've got the opener on.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that law enforcement had always been allowed to do this in sting operations and the like. The police are under no obligation to tell the truth when confronting a potential suspect. Yes, their wording to her may have been deceptive, but, frankly, I don't have much faith in someone saying, "Yes I gave them consent to use my photos, but not like this!" It sounds a good deal like buyer's remorse.
It doesn't matter. Unless there was a signed release from her niece, the woman doesn't actually own the picture. And at the very least, without informed consent from the niece for her picture to be used in a sting operation, the picture of the niece should have been pixelited, cut out, or not used at all.